OilyPablo
Member
Rifle. Exactly as I feel. And still the real crime rate is unchanged
Oregon gun laws improved last year by implementing universal background checks?
- Thread starter Warp
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
That's as ludicrous as saying, "You don't need ammunition to kill somebody with a gun." No, but it makes it a LOT easier.
Those on your side would no more pass a gun ban BEFORE registration than ISIS would attack Mosul with unloaded guns.
And predictably, you COMPLETELY ignored my little historical example.
What came first:
- gassing and shooting the Jews
- registering the Jews
danez71
Member
I'm still waiting for JSH1 to provide any data from the states that do have UBC.
He's been pushing UBC for a long time here and has had more than enough time to present some data.
I'd say you must be terribly uninformed because you wouldnt purposely try to deceive... would you?
He's been pushing UBC for a long time here and has had more than enough time to present some data.
I'd say you must be terribly uninformed because you wouldnt purposely try to deceive... would you?
"...as it shows the effectiveness of background checks at the dealer level.The offenders that got their firearm from retailer dealers dropped in half after background checks were required."
The objective is not 'keep crooks from getting guns by method A', it's 'keep crooks from getting guns'.
It's like the logic of restricting sudafed - it made local manufacture of meth go down, and meth imports from illicit cartel factories go up; net result is (I think) meth prices going down[1]. That's not a success story.
I've asked cop friends who started there careers a little after '68 what their feel was. When they were young cops, were the old hands saying 'yep, after we started background checks, crooks started saying guns were harder to come by'? They always answer that it didn't seem to make a whit of difference. That's the metric that matters - how hard is it for a mugger who wants a gun to find a gun.
That said, few people object to background checks at the FFL. It might not do much good, but you're at the store anyway, so it's a minor hassle. Requiring a trip to the FFL and a fee at either end of a simple loan, though, isn't a minor hassle.
[1]disclaimer: I don't follow drug war stats closely; if my facts are wrong, please correct.
The objective is not 'keep crooks from getting guns by method A', it's 'keep crooks from getting guns'.
It's like the logic of restricting sudafed - it made local manufacture of meth go down, and meth imports from illicit cartel factories go up; net result is (I think) meth prices going down[1]. That's not a success story.
I've asked cop friends who started there careers a little after '68 what their feel was. When they were young cops, were the old hands saying 'yep, after we started background checks, crooks started saying guns were harder to come by'? They always answer that it didn't seem to make a whit of difference. That's the metric that matters - how hard is it for a mugger who wants a gun to find a gun.
That said, few people object to background checks at the FFL. It might not do much good, but you're at the store anyway, so it's a minor hassle. Requiring a trip to the FFL and a fee at either end of a simple loan, though, isn't a minor hassle.
[1]disclaimer: I don't follow drug war stats closely; if my facts are wrong, please correct.
Ed Ames
Member
1) Australia didn't have a national registry, but individual states had registries. This is equivalent to Oregon having a registry.
2) It is widely reported that a huge percentage of the banned firearms "taken off the street" were not in fact bought back. They were buried by the owners. I've seen claims that compliance rates in sates without registration were as low as 10%. Of course a buried weapon is still available for criminal enterprises.
"Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." -- Attributed to A. Einstein
The problem with the idea of "law abiding" comes down to this: Nothing in US history has been more destructive of public order and the rule of law than prohibition. The prohibition of alcohol and drugs created and sustain entire sub cultures where obedience to law is simply a non-factor. Formerly law abiding individuals and families became routine criminals and are today. What will prohibition of guns do? It will continue that damage. It will actively pull people away from the law. And once you are a little away...once you are in the woods with an illegal gun, you might as well have an illegal silencer, and you might as well shoot an illegal deer, and the more you do that the less you will think other laws really matter.
The result? In an effort to pander to the fears of people who don't own weapons, you have made the world less safe for everyone.
1. Some Australian States had registries, others did not. Some states had severe restrictions on the types of firearms the public could own, others did not.
2. Prohibition can be a dangerous thing. Our current prohibition on drugs (and other "vices" like gambling and prostitution) drives the vast majority of violence in the USA today. Addressing that issue is the real solution to our current problem. (Which is why I say the politicians that are on the right side of most gun issues are wrong about the real solution to the problem)
Until then we deal with the reality of today and nibbling around the edges of the problem.
We aren't talking about a ban on types of firearms for the general public. No law abiding citizen will suddenly be made a criminal by requiring a background check. We are talking about prohibiting criminals from buying guns. (These criminals should get there gun rights and all other rights back when the finish probation ). No doubt some prohibited people will attempt to buy guns and many will suceed. However we shouldn't make it easy for them to do so.
No are you? The plain fact is that Australia did not have a gun registry before Port Austin. As Ed pointed out SOME Australian States did.
Carl N. Brown
Member
At what point does the attempt to make it less easy become counter productive: cost more than it benefits?
Take the 2011 FBI number of handgun homicides, divide into the Obama Admin estimate of private handguns, you get 1 handgun homicide out of 18,000 handguns. Policy focused at violence targeting violent behavior by violent people (malum in se) would in my not so humble opinion have more impact than a policy aimed at an unfocussed diffusion spread across all handgun owners.
Compare the failed and repealed Maryland and New York "ballistic fingerprint" databases -- ballistic data on all handguns sold -- to the ATF NIBIN system of crime scene ballistic data. The former were so unfocussed as to be useless. NIBIN actually does work.
Take the 2011 FBI number of handgun homicides, divide into the Obama Admin estimate of private handguns, you get 1 handgun homicide out of 18,000 handguns. Policy focused at violence targeting violent behavior by violent people (malum in se) would in my not so humble opinion have more impact than a policy aimed at an unfocussed diffusion spread across all handgun owners.
Compare the failed and repealed Maryland and New York "ballistic fingerprint" databases -- ballistic data on all handguns sold -- to the ATF NIBIN system of crime scene ballistic data. The former were so unfocussed as to be useless. NIBIN actually does work.
Stop lying
2bfree
Member
Really, never tried to ban AR's ?
Sorry, I totally missed your post (A cell phone is not the best tool for discussion but my work blocks access to THR)
No, I don't agree with your basic premise that the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to rise up against an oppressive federal government. The 2nd amendment was designed to allow for the defense of the nation by a militia of armed citizens. The founders were afraid of a standing national army so the best alternative was a citizen militia. (The concept proved unworkable, and today we have a standing army)
I also disagree with the implied relationship between the citizen and the government. The government is not an outside force to be resisted. We the people are the government and the government is made up of the people. (I suspect that is a fundamentally different view of government, and the Federal government in particular, than many here on THR)
About what? The requirement for a background check doesn't make anyone a criminal. If someone decides to break the law they make themselves a criminal.
Ed Ames
Member
That's somewhere between disingenuous and false.
People following long customary practices go from law abiding citizens to criminals if they don't realize the laws have changed. The same act,
Beyond that, I'm sure the law created unanticipated corner cases. E.g. I can purchase the contents of a storage locker, or a house and everything in it. What if it turns out there are guns inside? Here in Texas, no problem! I just bought myself some guns. In Oregon?
You said earlier in this thread that the point of the law is to remove the element of intent. Well, if intent isn't a factor, then buying a storage bin, house, car, or whatever that contains a gun is a violation if though you didn't know the gun was there.
We are talking in this thread about background checks.
Some seek to take the thread off topic and talk about registries and bans which are a completely different topic.
I don't know. What does the NICS background checks system cost? How can we make it cost less and work more efficiently? Does it make sense to pay to keep all that data but only use it for a portion of gun sales instead of all sales?
That makes you wrong
No. They are not a completely different topic. Not at all. You are either lying (to yourself and/or to us) or incredibly ignorant to the topic if you are going to continually claim UBC's are a completely different topic from registries.
Yes laws change and some people might now bother to research what the law says. On the other hand, today we have a hodgepodge of laws that are different by location and type of firearms. It would be far easier if the answer to "do I need a background check for this gun?" was simply yes. Sell a gun do a check.
It could also open up the opportunity to get rid of all the different regulations on buying guns across state lines. It could be as simple as Yes, anyone from any state can buy a gun anywhere as long as they pass the background check.
2bfree
Member
Hey, you are the one that said it, but I guess if you can lie about one thing the rest must come easy.
Background checks could eventually become a registry if the documentation was kept forever. The law in Oregon discards the data after 5 years.
It is dependent on how the law is written.
Your opinion and you are welcome to it.
Jlr2267
Member
" f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
The Second Amendment was meant to prevent an oppressive government from even forming.
It was meant to keep the protection of American Soil in the hands of the citizens.
The militia was meant to consist of all able citizens.
The Second Amendment was influenced heavily by the Virginia Declaration of rights which stated
Read a lot of Jefferson and you will find that he thought standing armies were one of the greatest threats to a free nation. His ideas on RKBA were that the people needed to be armed, and trained to defend the nation in order to prevent the need of a standing army.
Caution against standing armies was never added to the constitution, only the idea that armed and organized citizens were the best defense of a free nation.
Ok, so now we have standing armies, and the gun control crowd thinks that eliminates the need for private gun ownership. Actually, having standing armies in itself goes against the ideals which went into crafting the Bill of Rights. If the gun control crowd really wanted to interpret the Bill of Rights as "we only need arms to form militias", then they would also realize that having a constant standing army is counter to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
It was meant to keep the protection of American Soil in the hands of the citizens.
The militia was meant to consist of all able citizens.
The Second Amendment was influenced heavily by the Virginia Declaration of rights which stated
Read a lot of Jefferson and you will find that he thought standing armies were one of the greatest threats to a free nation. His ideas on RKBA were that the people needed to be armed, and trained to defend the nation in order to prevent the need of a standing army.
Caution against standing armies was never added to the constitution, only the idea that armed and organized citizens were the best defense of a free nation.
Ok, so now we have standing armies, and the gun control crowd thinks that eliminates the need for private gun ownership. Actually, having standing armies in itself goes against the ideals which went into crafting the Bill of Rights. If the gun control crowd really wanted to interpret the Bill of Rights as "we only need arms to form militias", then they would also realize that having a constant standing army is counter to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
No, that is not simple. Needing to pay money to get the government's permission to sell/transfer your property is not simple, while they track it, is not simple. That is kind of the opposite of simple.
Simple would be...do I need a background check to buy or sell this gun? No.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
